Posted on 05/22/2003 10:05:38 AM PDT by DPB101
Is anyone able to listen to this speech ? I have an older version of Real Player which doesn't work at this site.
O'Reilly has been blasting LA Times reporter Robert Scheer this week. He might be interested in a sound bite from Robert Scheer defending (I am guessing) the Black Panthers:
January 26, 1968
Rally for the Oakland 7. Includes speeches by Bobby Seale, Bettina Apthecker* (Free Speech Movement), Robert Scheer (Managing Editor, Ramparts Magazine), Bob Avakian (Peace & Freedom Party), and John Kelly (Professor of Mathematics, UC Berkeley).
Listen to this recording (requires RealAudio)
KPFA Radio, February 20, 1968 (Pacifica Radio Archives BB1783) 50 min.
More here:
UC Berkeley Library Social Activism Sound Recording Project: Black Panther Party
*Bettina Apthecker. From Free Republic thread Thirteenth Report of the Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities--California :
It is significant to note that there was a meeting in Moscow, September 16-24, 1964, of "A World Forum for Solidarity of Youth and Students..."
This convention was sponsored by the Committee of Youth Organizations of the USSR, the International Union of Students and the World Federation of Democratic Youth . . .
The main topic of the conference was an international drive to accelerate the recruiting of students, the unleashing of student demonstrations, and the establishment of an International Solidarity Fund to channel Soviet and other financial aid to national liberation movements and to provide technical and financial assistance to new nations . . .
It is also significant to note that three prominent California activists were in the Soviet Union in September, 1964. They were Herbert Aptheker, Carl Bloice, and Dr. Carlton Goodlett. Aptheker is the father of Bettina Aptheker, who played a prominent role in both the DuBois Clubs and the student rebellion at Berkeley, and whose descriptions of the events of the past six months have been printed in several Communist publications . . .
Thread posted earlier today by "Veronica" castigating Scheer for his reporting:
O'Reilly has broken the first rule for LA Times readers, NEVER READ Scheer's columns unless you want to ruin your day.
The Times is so liberal I think they sometimes write the letters to the editor, just to enhance their editorial opinions, just my suspicion based on years of observation.
The OP ED page has NO regular conservative contributors. Occasionally they run a George Will column, one of which they committed a NO-NO on and actually EDITED a Will OP ED because they DIDN'T LIKE something he said about their BUBBA BOY. Of course much to their chagrin we heard about it on talk radio because other papers printed Will's OP ED as written.
I start many mornings fuming at this newspaper, they show NO SIGN of even attempting to be even handed in anything they do, not just the editorials.
They've gone so far out that they recently gave their Book Award to a screed advocating adult sex with children.
After days of front page whining about the "museum disaster" in Baghdad, they FINALLY just a few days ago confirmed, 11 pages in not on the front page, what we all now know, that it was basically a HOAX, not true. It took them at least TWO WEEKS after the truth came out to even mention it.
These are the things that happen when there is no competition. I would pay DOUBLE for a newspaper I could feel good about supporting. I know I could live without the LA Times but I feel somewhat obligated to keep an eye on them.
My first paying job was as a paper boy for the Herald-Examiner. It was a daily afternoon paper in the 1960's, and the Sunday edition was delivered early in the morning.
I made about $1 per day folding, delivering, and collecting payment. I rode my bicycle in the hilly area of Palos Verdes. I'd take my full load of papers to the top of the route, and then coast down the way back, tossing the papers as I went. I was in seventh heaven!
I can play Real Player format files with mplayer in Linux, so I would think WMP would be able to do it. Then again... :-)
How far gone is Scheer? Well, read his stuff, or Sharkansky's damning assessment of Scheer's columns from the past four months. And then ponder the little bit of history on Scheer published by FrontpageMagazine.com on May 6. David Horowitz's web-site reprinted excerpts from an August 8, 1970 article from The Black Panther --the official paper of the Black Panther Party. The article reported on the trip to North Korea of a delegation of radicals, led by Eldridge Cleaver. According to the report, Scheer made the trip and signed the statement that the traveling revos issued. The statement signed by Scheer read in part:
"Since the peoples of the world have a common enemy, we must begin to think of revolution as an international struggle against U.S. imperialism. Our struggle in the U.S. is a genuine part of the total revolutionary assault on this enemy. Understanding the Korean people's struggle, and communicating this to the American movement is a crucial step in developing this internationalist perspective."
True in the case of Rackley. They thought he was ratting them out to the cops so they tortured him with boiling water for hours and then shot him.
May have to wait to buy a new computer before finding out what Scheer said in 1968. Maybe there is nothing there but, considering the audience, I imagine he had to be preaching off the cliff radicalism.
If liberals heard there was a unnoticed audio of a prominent conservative speaking 35 years ago to a radical conservative group, liberals would have a transcript up in no time.
Scheer ranks right up there with Robert Fiske as the most vile person with a regular column. The tone of his writing is not sarcastic (Dowd), mean (Conason), pseudo-intellectual (Alterman), smug (Alter)...it's just vicious ranting against his ideological opposites.
His love affair with Clinton might exceed that of Sid Blumenthal.
Share the good stuff with us, please!
Scheer enjoyed his friendships with Clinton White House operatives like James Carville and Sidney Blumenthal as much as he savored the salons of the Hollywood left. Such associations inflate his uncomely sense of superiority over those who figuratively stand on the outside, looking in. In a revealing moment, Scheer once cruelly mocked an unemployed journalist thusly: "Look at you. You support the System, and you're struggling, while I attack it and have a six-figure salary and a yacht, and am surrounded by Hollywood stars." (Reported in David Horowitz's Radical Son.)
Scheer's opportunism is evident in the double standards that governed his reporting on the Clinton Administration. Now Scheer is writing columns which assert that even one Iraqi killed by American arms constitutes a war crime. But in December 1998, when Clinton ordered the firing of 450 missiles into Iraq (more than in the entire Gulf War) and did so on the eve of the impeachment vote in the House, Scheer saw nothing suspicious about the timing. When Clinton ordered the bombing of Kosovo in 1999, Scheer flatly rejected the notion that Clinton may have been using military action as a means of diverting attention away from the stubborn Lewinsky scandal or the recently discovered Chinese espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratory (Scheer was the biggest press defender of Wen Ho Lee). Such accusations were merely the senseless rantings of partisan "jackals" intent on making Clinton feel "the lash of the self-righteous," said Scheer. Only Bush, it seems, can be accused of hidden agendas and ignoble motives.
Consider also Scheer's reaction after Clinton ordered the infamous 1998 missile attacks on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. The attack in the Sudan was in response to terrorist attacks on two American embassies and destroyed the country's only medicine factory which Clinton claimed was a chemical weapons plant. Clinton got no UN approval, did not demand an inspection of the plant, and got no congressional authorization. Scheer, who has viciously attacked Bush for dereliction on these grounds, not only found nothing wrong with Clinton's actions, he defended them. Denouncing those who wondered whether Clinton was "wagging the dog" in an effort to tone down the Lewinsky headlines, Scheer saw nothing objectionable or even suspicious that Clinton launched this strike into a foreign "Third World" country on the very day that Lewinsky was scheduled to testify before a grand jury. Even when the Sudanese site proved to be an aspirin factory that produced half of that war- and famine-ravaged country's legitimate drugs, Scheer called Clinton's missile attack "an appropriate response to the carnage" at the American embassies. "If our modern and very expensive weapons cannot be used against terrorists," he wrote, "what good are they in this post-Cold War world?" In essence, Scheer was endorsing the very policy for which he now condemns President Bush.
Scheer is one of the smelliest piles of offal ever to offend America's nostrils -- so naturally, the Los Angeles Times embraces him as one of their own.
Lol!...you have them all in their slots, don't you? I see Conason and I think mean. Same for all the other characterizations.
terilyn ...great! Let us know the gist of it. I'm hoping he says something really stupid talk radio can use as a spot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.